Needless to say, what follows contains spoilers from the film 10 Cloverfield Lane. You have been warned. :P

Chapter I - The Origins of 10 Cloverfield Lane

I’d like to begin this review with a story. Ahem. Once upon a time, there was a successful movie producer named J.J. Abrams. One day, young J.J. along with his friends Matt, Bryan, and Drew came up with a brilliant idea. They sought to create the best monster movie ever in the history of mankind.

Thus Cloverfield was born, but unlike most films, this one was marketed differently. Combining an aggressive viral marketing campaign with two vague teaser trailers attached to the theatrical releases of Transformers and Beowulf, J.J. and his crew were able to score nearly $50 million on opening weekend. For a film with a $25 million budget, they eventually made a huge profit with $170 million worldwide.

This financial success taught young J.J. a very important lesson: that selling a product requires cunning and tactical advertising. It was a lesson he would carry with him for a long time to come.

4 years later, in a land far away, two amateur film makers named John Campbell and Matt Stuecken wrote a screenplay titled ‘The Cellar’. J.J. was impressed with the story and decided to buy the rights and adapt it into a feature film behind closed doors.

After an additional 4 years, with The Cellar filmed and ready for release, J.J. wondered how he could sell this new product with the same kind of viral success that he achieved with Cloverfield 8 years earlier.

And 10 Cloverfield Lane was born . . .

You see, J.J. knew damn well that he couldn’t make $170 million at the box office with a low-budget psychological thriller like The Cellar. But J.J. wanted to add to the growing pile of gold that he kept hidden in a vault underneath his house. And he knew what he had to do to make it so.

So, in a dangerous move, J.J. Abrams changed the name of the film from The Cellar to 10 Cloverfield Lane. Why? Because Cloverfield was not only a financial success, it also generated a cult following; a large mass of fans desperate for a sequel to their beloved monster movie.

Even though The Cellar had absolutely nothing to do with Cloverfield, J.J. knew his fans would flock to the theaters in droves if he simply attached the name to the title for no reason. Then, all he needed to do was give an interview stating that 10 Cloverfield Lane was a “blood relative” to the original, splice the iconic roar of the monster from the original into the trailer, and add John Goodman’s character to a list of employees on the same website used in the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield. Brilliant.

But in his quest for money, foolish J.J. made a critical error. He forgot to consider that all those fans might not be too happy to discover that they had been duped. And duped they were; all of them.

Which brings us to 10 Cloverfield Lane, a film that has absolutely 100% nothing to do with Cloverfield, and yet shares the title for no reason. Oops.

Chapter II - Did I Ever Tell You the Definition of a Bait and Switch?

If it isn’t yet apparent why I titled this review ‘A Bait and Switch 8 Years in the Making’, then let me clarify so that there’s absolutely no confusion. This is the Merriam-Webster definition of the phrase ‘Bait and Switch’.

Bait and Switch: The ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.

Sound familiar? Indeed, 10 Cloverfield Lane perfectly fits the definition of a bait and switch, because it is nothing less than the quintessential bait and switch. J.J. Abrams stuck the word ‘Cloverfield’ into the title of his production studio’s new film, knowing full well that the audience would expect, at the very least, a vague spinoff taking place in the same universe as Cloverfield.

Some even expected a flat-out sequel, but that was simply not the case. 10 Cloverfield Lane fails to even reference any aspect of Cloverfield. It simply has nothing to do with it. It’s not a sequel, it’s not a prequel, it’s not a spinoff, it’s not a blood relative, it’s a movie that has as much to do with Cloverfield as Schindler’s List has to do with Star Wars.

So what does all this equate to? Well, it equates to this: J.J. lied. And it’s not just the fact that he lied that upsets me so much. Lots of people lie for good reasons. This was a lie for the worst reason of all. It was a lie for money.

10 Cloverfield Lane perfectly sums up what’s wrong with Hollywood. They care more about money than they do quality and integrity. It’s a sad fact, but it’s true. Money is the only reason 10 Cloverfield Lane isn’t titled The Cellar.

Now, one of the most intriguing arguments I’ve heard in defense of the producers of this film is the ‘Anthology argument’. It’s quite fascinating, actually. Basically, there are some people who are saying that 10 Cloverfield Lane bears the word Cloverfield, not because it’s a sequel, but rather because it’s a chapter in what is intended to be an overall anthology.

That’s a great argument and I have to say that I would be perfectly okay with that . . . if only J.J. had said so earlier. It still doesn’t change the fact that a vast majority of people walked into the theater, with the assumption that they were seeing a Cloverfield sequel. Had J.J. released the trailer and said something along the lines of ‘This is the second chapter in an anthology series. It has nothing to do with Cloverfield; Cloverfield is just the name of the anthology.’ Man, that would have been nice.

But J.J. didn’t do that, and he knew exactly what he was doing. It’s far too late for excuses. He had two months to clarify exactly what this film was.

And don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that a film studio is required to specify exactly what their film is before releasing it. They’re just not supposed to falsely advertise it as something it isn’t for the express purpose of fooling people into seeing it. Deception is wrong. It’s wrong in Hollywood, just as it’s wrong in politics and in all walks of life. If you disagree with that, then I’m proud to inform you that you would make a great politician and/or movie executive. Congratulations!

Chapter III - How Plot-Driven Storylines Ruin Films

Strictly based on content, 10 Cloverfield Lane is not a bad film. It’s not a masterpiece and it’s certainly not as good as Cloverfield, but it’s a perfectly decent film (for the most part). In fact, there are multiple aspects of 10 Cloverfield Lane that I adore as a moviegoer.

The first 90 minutes of the film take place in an underground bunker, filled to the brim with suspense, intrigue, and some really terrific acting. Oh, and the score is nice as well. I have to say, it was a really pleasant movie experience.

The thing that sabotages that is the same thing that sabotages most films these days: a plot-driven storyline. The best kind of film is one that allows the characters to make common sense decisions that make sense, and shape the storyline around that. Most films, however, start out with a set-in-stone plot and force the characters to make unrealistic and stupid decisions to move the plot in the direction it’s intended to go.

And boy let me tell you, these characters make some STUPID decisions in this film. I’ll name two specific examples, because I don’t have all day and two are really all I need to make my point.

Stupid Decision 1:

Protagonists decide that the bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist that saved their lives from a terrestrial chemical attack is no longer trustworthy. They subsequently decide to create a make-shift hazmat suit, and craft a weapon to disarm the crazy man, steal his keys, and escape from the bunker.

Common Sense Alternative:

Why not just craft a weapon and kill the bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist? Why risk your lives and walk into almost certain death above ground, when there’s a perfectly good bunker filled with food and supplies at your disposal? Don’t tell me you’re squeamish about murder. It’s the apocalypse after all. The gloves have to come off sooner or later.

Stupid Decision 2:

Bunker-crazed conspiracy theorist discovers that the protagonists have stolen a pair of scissors and some duct tape. He asks them what they’re up to and protagonist #1 decides to tell a fib. His brilliant excuse is something along the lines of ‘I wanted to make a weapon so I could kill you, take your gun, and assault protagonist #2’. I kid you not, that’s what he came up with.

Common Sense Alternative:

Uh, probably anything other than ‘I’M TRYING TO KILL YOU.’ What in the hell was this idiot thinking? He could have told him the truth and it would have gotten him into less trouble. Instead, maybe he should have tried one of the following, more intelligent excuses:

-I’ve decided to make some arts and crafts (it’s only scissors and duct-tape that were taken, after all).

-We’re trying to create a hazmat suit so we can forage for food above ground once we run out of supplies (this is actually more or less the truth, and it doesn’t make him look like he’s trying to kill anybody).

-Scissors and duct tape are pretty practical items that come in a variety of uses. I’m sorry I took them without your knowledge and it will not happen again. :)

Again, I’d like to stress the fact that this character in question was stupid enough to come up with a lie that was ACTUALLY WORSE than the truth. My god, what a moron.

Chapter IV - How a Lie Can Ruin Something Beautiful

The last ten minutes of 10 Cloverfield Lane are very different from the first 90. Basically, the female protagonist escapes from the bunker, only to find that the outside world has been invaded by aliens. Yes, aliens.

What do these aliens look like? I don’t know. Whoever did the CGI for this movie made damn sure that you can never get a clear view of them. Why would they do that? Because that’s the best way to cover up lame, B-Movie-Grade visual effects.

And this brings me to my ultimate problem with this movie. If you’re going to put vague, uninspired monsters into the film, why not just set the film in 2008 and use the parasites from Cloverfield? Wouldn’t that have worked better?

Instead of having some vague alien invasion, just implement a hypothetical scenario wherein the parasitic monsters from the original film (you’d better know what I’m talking about because they’re way too weird looking for me to describe; maybe I’ll add a picture of one so that you know what it looks like) breed and spread throughout the world and wipeout most of mankind. That would have worked better for two reasons:

Reason 1 - It would have actually connected this film to Cloverfield, and I wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you about deception and bait and switch marketing tactics.

Reason 2 - Nobody wants to see cliche-looking aliens with bad CGI. The parasites were actually cool, a bit on the scary side, and they were easy to animate. The gray blob that rolls around and eats things with an elephant trunk is just silly, and blowing up an alien spacecraft with a Molotov cocktail is unbelievably stupid. Did nobody learn from War of the Worlds? I guess Hollywood doesn’t watch their own movies or read what viewers think about them.

This is when you know you’re dealing with a bad film. When some yahoo like me can sit around and easily propose a far superior way to write a film, that’s when you know the moviemakers didn’t think it through. I can’t believe that nobody proposed this idea while they were filming. What a missed opportunity.

What really bothers me is the fact that if they had used the Cloverfield parasites, I’d be sitting here, more or less, praising this film. I’d probably give it 3.5/4 stars and everybody would be happy. No. They apparently don’t want that.

Instead, they committed to using a cheap deceptive marketing tactic, and basically ruined the ending of their film. They had an easy way out that would have benefitted everybody, and they elected not to take it. That’s not just greedy, it’s downright stupid.

So now I have no choice but to grade this movie in a different way. For openly lying to audiences, using dumb character decisions to move the plot along, and using cheap CGI for no good reason, I decree that this film shall receive zero stars out of four. I have spoken. And so it shall be so, for now and forever more. Enjoy your precious gold for now, J.J. Next time you use the word ‘Cloverfield’ in the title of one of your films, expect a much different reaction. The wolf is mighty hungry, and the townspeople aren’t listening anymore.

Comments : 54

This is the first scary movie that I've ever seen and I have to say, I was fairly impressed, although I was freaking out when it was two in the morning and stormy. With all the other horror films I've seen, including the first five minutes of The Ring and The Shining, it wasn't my favorite, but it was still pretty good.

Disappointed with this review Gray, you usually are extremely fair minding doing these. But I do see your point. The whole plot was taken from the cellar and then in the end they added something related to cloverfield. "Nothing related to cloverfield" xD nah It is obvious that it is related to cloverfield, thats why they put the name there. The problem is that they advertised it in such a way that people will think that the whole bunker scene would be the first 10 - 20 minutes of the film and then we will have survival thriller and shit. I guess more could be added to film but it was just a mid "something" to make sure the world knows that we might have a Cloverfield trilogy. Or see the interesting part of this - We might have a trilogy with each film having different aspect - 1 was survival horror thriller action, 2 (this one) is psychological horror thriller...Who knows?

But the thing is you are superimposing the film and should realize that stupid scenes and decisions happen in real life so they can happen in movies (and I know you will say that movie is to show something interesting from a story point of view and shit) but still, it was a bit realistic. Then you are criticizing the film for its marketing campaign, not the film itself lmao. The fact is this is wrong too. Media only criticizes the film for its story and stuff, but not the marketing campaign. That's why directors have a trick to fool the fans so that they can increase their views. So I agree and disagree with you, you really pointed out the wrong, but the film was good itself actually.

You're wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. The ending to 10 Cloverfield Lane, in fact, has absolutely 100% nothing to do with Cloverfield. Cloverfield was about an ancient sea creature, awoken by a fallen satellite. 10 Cloverfield Lane is about an extraterrestrial invasion. I fail to see the connection.

Secondly, no we were not expecting the movie to only take place in the bunker for the first 10-20 minutes. In fact, I was well aware that the bunker was the main setting for the movie, even before I saw it. Regardless, that is largely irrelevant. What we were expecting was (at the very least) a universal acknowledgement of the events of the first film, either in the form of dialogue, or in the form of present action. Neither happened in this film.

Thirdly, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that holding a film accountable for its marketing campaign is wrong. That's an incredibly short-sighted and naive perspective and, frankly, I expect better of you. Intentionally misleading your fanbase in order to achieve high box office numbers is not only unethical, it's flat-out insulting. Somebody needs to hold them responsible, otherwise the relationship and trust between the movie studio and the fanbase becomes broken.

Lastly, you might want to edit your comment. There's language in there that could easily get you banned (I've been banned for using similar terminology before). Just a heads up. ;)

No no, you got me wrong. I said I agree on the marketing thing which you pointed out. I meant that critics don't see that as well as the fans will also say "it was a good film after all" THATS why the directors trolls think that it will be OK to trick the audience by making the marketing campaign awesome and then inslut the viewers finally, which is wrong lol.

I did expect that the bunker scene would be the first 20 minutes xD

Cloverfield started when a sattelite fell in the ocean and awakened the creature, then he called his friends from the other world to eat tasty humans. If you go the net and see an article, there were clues and Easter eggs of 10 cloverfield Lane in cloverfield or Easter eggs of cloverfield in 10 cloverfield lane and stuff... Yea... Something like that... :P

And cmon it is obvious it is a sequel if we see from a viewers perspective, as alien invasion and cloverfield is there in both films (yea the 1st one is kinda like an invasion)

Oh and I am on another site so I actually don't care to get banned here, but I love this community so I'll listen to you as a humble friend :P

Lol, no. Clover doesn't summon intergalactic allies, but good try. I'm a total junkie when it comes to the viral marketing stuff, and even I've never come across that one. xD

And the perspective is actually not the same in 10 Cloverfield Lane. Cloverfield was a found-footage movie. This is a free-moving, 3rd person perspective.

So, all in all, the only real way 10 Cloverfield Lane connects to Cloverfield is the fact that both of them have vague monstrous entities attacking mankind. I guess Godzilla and Pacific Rim are sequels to Cloverfield too. :P

"Sir a new kaiju is appearing from the rift""What?!""It's... A category 6... The first ever!""It's.. A dinosaur?!"*Godzilla comes out and starts the crush the hell out of jaegers**Opens mouth and blasts the hell out of shatterdome with his beam*

10 Cloverfield Lane is a spiritual successor meaning that it doesn't build up to the storyline.

It's kind of like World War Z except it's not a terrible adaptation and actually IS good

I do see why you didn't like it, I got a little disappointed, but it does have a good screenplay you kinda have to admit it. I saw this with my sister. She isn't a big movie buff like I am and she loved the film

No no no no no no no. The production company didn't advertise it as a spiritual successor. That's the issue here. If they hadn't built it up as more than a spiritual successor, I would be just fine with it.

Actually no, I take that back. I still wouldn't be completely fine with it. The movie was, as you said, well written and captivating up until﻿﻿ the last 10 minutes when it shifted from an emotional thriller to something I'd expect out of Michael Bay. The ending killed it, with or without the deceitful advertising campaign.

I can see why the last moments were Michael Bay-ish , my guess is that they decided to put those scenes near the end so that they can can have a ''Cloverfield'' feel.

I don't want to start a debate or anything, but if you said that the movie was captivating and well written then why give it 0 stars?I mean the ending was a little questioning, but it should at least get 2 stars or something. No offense, but you made this seem like a review for The Lovely Bones xD

I explained that in the blog. It would have gotten a higher rating, if not for the deceitful ad campaign. You see, I (unlike some) firmly believe that deceit and cutthroat tactics absolutely should be called out, and I believe that people who lie should be held accountable for their actions. If I had it my way, lying on a public platform would be illegal (like it is in some western countries). Of course, media outlets like Fox News would be adamantly opposed to something like that, but hey, that's just my humble opinion.

Yes it was that site that gave Gravity a 97%. It also gave Mad Max: Fury Road a 97% and The Revenant a 82% and Cloud Atlas 66% and The Godfather has a 99% and Room a 94% and Spotlight a 96% and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has a 93%. Movies change over time. I didn't like Gravity either. I hate it actually. It has huge backlash now. It only has high praise for its cinematography. That's it. If you didn't like Gravity, then pan the film yourself on it. That's what the website is for actually. You can't just really pan a film because of little disappointment or an ad campaign when you say the movie is﻿ well written ﻿and﻿ captivating﻿.

﻿Also, it's not a good idea ﻿﻿SPOILING THE MOVIE WHEN IT CAME OUT A COUPLE DAYS AGO AND NOT ON DVD YET. ﻿*common sense...

That's your opinion. I find it disgusting that a clear, well thought out, and emotionally neutral argument that you disagree with is labeled a 'rant'. But, then again, that's something I'd come to expect, given the overall public climate these days. But hey, that's just my opinion.

I'm sorry, but there is virtually no way I can consider your argument "emotionally neutral."

It has nothing to do with a "Public Climate." and I do not understand what you mean by that. Obviously this is entirely my opinion as well, but that doesn't even need to be stated. I don't mean to come across as rude or anything but I fail to understand how you can consider an argument based almost entirely off of "A creative project wasn't what I expected." neutral. That's around as emotionally charged as you can get, and even then, there is nothing wrong with incorporating emotion into a review so long as you don't let the entire review be consumed by it.

'Negative' does not automatically equal 'Emotional'. Yes, this review is negative, as it should be.

Let me ask you a question. Let's pretend that you're going bald. I come in and offer you a product to regrow your hair. You buy said product. You use it as instructed. Your hair does not grow back, and consequently you develop a severe rash on your scalp.

My question is this: would you give a scathing review of said product, as I have here? Or would maintain your current ethos and say 'Well, it wasn't what I was expecting, but at least I got a neat rash out of the deal.'

And this is the problem. When the chips are down and something you buy is positively advertised with profoundly negative results, you would be standing exactly where I am now. It's like how people think giving birthday presents is a stupid idea, until it's their birthday. Then it sounds like a great idea.

And you can deny it all you want, but you know deep down it's true. That is the folly of man. Everythingisbiased. That's why the world is so screwed up right now.

That's not at all what I meant. If the review was positive because you loved the ad campaign, character choices, and it went where you wanted it to go, I'd feel the same. Whether or not it's negative is entirely irrelevant.

Your comparison doesn't work whatsoever. They never advertised it as a direct sequel to any degree, and from the trailers it was evident it was going to have a different focus. The original Cloverfield trailers showed what the focus would be clearly, even if they were vague, if I recall correctly. Never, in any degree, did they directly lie. They never said "This is going to be a Cloverfield Prequel/Sequel/Etc. It seems as if the movie is in the same universe, but being upset that it's not directly tied throughout the entire movie is akin to being upset that Portal isn't just like Half-Life despite both taking place in the same universe and being mentioned several times a such.

Essentially, this is not a product - it's, basically just cinematic art. It doesn't lie for attention. If it were a 20 minute stop-motion animation film with none of what was shown in the trailer, to make a dramatic example, then it'd be a lie. For a more reasonable example of deceitfulness, if the film featured a few of the shots from the trailer but then did a 180, say, 20 minutes into the movie, and turns into, let's say, a romance film, ﻿that ﻿﻿is most certainly deceitful. But I fail to understand where these "lies" or "deceit" are.

And, for the record, arguing that "I know it's true deep down" doesn't really work. It's not convincing or scathing to any degree. As for everything being biased, I'd argue that's one of the few reasons life is worth living. If everything were purely logical and efficient, that leaves only one single question: Why?

Semantics. The fact that they never explicitly called it a 'sequel' or a 'spin-off' is irrelevant. They heavily implied it, repeatedly, throughout the ad campaign. Denial of this basic and irrefutable fact is not something I will debate.

And yes, in fact, it is a product. I payed for it. As for it being cinematic art, I disagree as well. Schindler's List is cinematic art. Citizen Kane is cinematic art. 10 Cloverfield Lane is entertainment. There's a difference between the two.

And if you fail to see the lies and deceit, then maybe you should reread my blog, and look more carefully. Splicing things into the trailer that aren't actually in the movie to imply tangible relatedness to Cloverfield is deceitful.

I have to laugh at your final question. The idea that life is worth living because of the inherent flaws in our biology is ridiculous. If everything were purely logical and efficient, the world would be a much better place. 'Why' has nothing to do with it. 'Why' is a silly word engineered by humans, because they feel so very important. There is no 'why'. We are insignificant. The universe extends far beyond our miserable rock, which has been infected by humans, and will eventually die at our hands. And the universe won't even notice. That is a fact.

If you're not going to debate that "irrefutable fact" that happens to be based on subjectivity, that's cool. It's pointless to argue about it since you're not going to change your position regardless.

It is cinematic art. A six year old's drawing is basic visual art just as 10 Cloverfield Lane is cinematic art, as well as any short movie production, irregardless of quality. You claim I'm arguing semantics and go on to do just that in your second paragraph.

I have read over the blog several times and see very little, if any direct evidence of lies and deceit. Expecting something called a "Blood relative" to be a sequel or spinoff (Which, really, it is, in a sense) is a stretch. If they wanted to generate that sweet hype, they could have said it's directly related/a prequel/sequel/etc. There's a pretty big difference between the terms.

It's evident that you do not wish to continue discussing this as you have, at this point, traveled beyond any pretenses of civility, so I'm not even going to continue with that lol.

On your last point, that's an incredibly narrow view of an incomprehensibly large universe. If everything is pure efficiency, there is no point to anything. Emotions, instinct, and similar natural byproducts make us flawed. They impede efficiency. To be ultimately efficient and logical requires every single being to be that way - there is no individuality, there is conformity. To be ultimately efficient and logical requires that constant conformity. And the universe doesn't conform.

I have long since accepted that eventually, every single one of us is going to die. Whether it be from a natural disaster, human error, an event beyond our understanding or the outright death of the universe, this is something I am completely fine with. Using that as an argument doesn't affect my opinion.

I am not going to continue with this. I hate to be rude but I do not enjoy debating with individuals high on nihilism.

Genius. Wise beyond your years. I very much appreciate the information you've shared on the underlying evil. I continue to move further and further from all media for generally the same reasons. And certainly no one needs more 'stupidity' out of Hollywood; it's reaching critical mass...

True, but saying a movie is "bad" because it's name made you think it was related to something seems... wrong. I knew about Cloverfield and when I heard about this film, I didn't think it was related. If you saw this film, not knowing it's name, or knowing anything about Cloverfield, would you like it?

To clarify, it's not worse than Fantastic Four cinematically. It's worse because the creators took deliberate steps to deceive moviegoers for the express purpose of making more money, even when there were simple steps they could have taken to both avoid that and also improve the film. :P

Was the movie bad on purpose or where they simply not putting any effort in it? In my opinion the worst scenario is a tryharder that completely fails, because it's so unimaginative (i guess the new ghostbusters will be like this)....

I guess thats one of the major problems of todays movies. I also think that Abrams is better at Reworking franchises rather than thinking of something himself, because his ideas usually turn out way to weird in the end (fringe or lost for example)

Interestingly, Abrams doesn't do a lot of the actual writing/directing for those TV shows. For example, J.J. only wrote 2 episodes of Lost and directed 2 as well. He's more of a puppet master than an actual creative mind.